file-rc? was: Re: All services that require a restart from libc6 upgrade...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:31:18PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> > > set $(runlevel) # $2 is now current runlevel
> > > name=service
> > > rcfile=/etc/rc$2.d/S??$name
>
> > > test -f $rcfile && $rcfile restart
>
> > > Simple, cleaner, more elegant, more obvious, less confusing.
>
> > And completely incompatible with file-rc
>
> Ah, hadn't noticed that we have such a beast. I'll leave aside my
> personal feelings about such an abomination and agree that it does
> break my proposed example. Fortunately, it was just an example.
>
> > we haven't a script to find out whether a daemon is running yet, but
> > we should introduce one and fixate this in the policy).
>
> Yes, this would seem to be the only sane approach. (Other than
> discarding file-rc and shooting Roland to put him out of his
> misery.:-)
This is fodder for another thread, anyway. Historical reasons aside, is
there a Good Enough valid technical reason to discard file-rc?
The only difficulty I've had with using file-rc is with third-party
install scripts that assume the system has /etc/rc?.d/<foo> symlinks. Plus
I seem to recall Red Hat going off and doing their own thing for a while
with /etc/<foo>/rc?.d/ (I just don't recall the exact name they use)
Hell, I've been using file-rc ever since it was introduced. Searching the
archives, it appears it was with the 2.0 release, and I vaguely recall
using it somewhat beforehand.
[stuff about the libc upgrades snipped to fork the thread]
Reply to: